Commerce Committee Hearing/Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction
The Current State of Earthquake Monitoring, Research, and Preparation in the United States

Opening Statement of Senator Barbara Boxer
April 18, 2006

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on the current state of earthquake monitoring, research and preparation in the United States on the 100th anniversary of the 1906 ‘quake.

One hundred years ago today at 5:12 am, a small earthquake was felt in the San Francisco Bay area. Thirty seconds later, a 7.9 magnitude earthquake struck for an entire minute. The length of the rupture was 290 miles.

On this Centennial Anniversary, we must not only remember the three thousand lives lost in the severe destruction, the 225,000 people left homeless and the $400 million in damages.

On this day we must also look at how far we have come since that tragic day, and how far we still have to go when it comes to earthquake preparedness.

When the big quake struck in 1906, San Francisco had 400,000 residents and the greater Bay Area had 650,000 residents.

Compare that to today – the Bay Area has 7 million residents Imagine the devastation of another 7.9 magnitude earthquake on the region.

Although earthquakes cannot be predicted like hurricanes, the US Geological Survey estimates that there is a 62 percent likelihood that at least one earthquake of 6.7 or greater will occur in the San Francisco Bay Area before 2032.

Therefore, it is imperative that the both the federal and state governments be ready to respond in the aftermath of a major earthquake in California.

Since I have been in Congress, there have been numerous earthquakes – including the San Simeon earthquake near the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and one in Napa Valley.

But today I want to highlight two California earthquakes that required a major federal response: Loma Prieta in the Bay Area in 1989 and Northridge in the Los Angeles region in 1994.

The experiences surrounding these two earthquakes and their respective aftermaths demonstrate the difference it makes when we have a prepared federal government.

The 6.9 magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake was the most devastating California has seen since 1906. Many people remember this earthquake because it was televised right before Game Three of the World Series at Candlestick Park.

Its epicenter was near the Loma Prieta peak in the Santa Cruz Mountains. These charts illustrate some of the damage.

At the time, the Loma Prieta earthquake was the most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history with $6 billion in property damage. There was a federal relief package of $3.45 billion.

However, FEMA’s response was described by many local officials at the time as chaotic, overly bureaucratic, and even arrogant.

Six weeks after the earthquake, FEMA had given out only $11 million to 6,300 applicants– even though 55,000 Californians had applied for aid. So 6 weeks later, nearly 50,000 people were still waiting for assistance, leaving many families homeless.

Paul Cobb, then-President of the Oakland Urban Renaissance Society said, “FEMA is understaffed and in disarray...”

Six months after the Loma Prieta earthquake, a Congressional hearing was held to review the response of federal agencies.

At the hearing, Oakland Mayor Lionel Wilson told the panel how FEMA had dispatched only one agent to handle the thousands left homeless in Oakland, and the individual had no idea how to deal with the disaster.

So not only was there anecdotal evidence attesting to FEMA’s poor response to the Loma Prieta quake, but the General Accounting Office found that FEMA did not have enough staff and guidance on federal reimbursement. GAO also found that two years after the earthquake FEMA still had major outstanding funding decisions.

By the time the 6.7 magnitude earthquake struck Northridge in 1994, FEMA had learned from its mistakes.

According to Shirley Svorny, director of the San Fernando Valley Economic Research Center at Cal State Northridge, “The recovery from the Loma Prieta earthquake took considerably longer (than Northridge) because federal assistance was much slower in coming.”

Federal assistance is crucial to getting people and the economy back on its feet.

Colorado State University Professor of Economics Hal Cochrane studied the impact of the federal government’s assistance after Northridge on the Los Angeles economy. Professor Cochrane determined that without the federal response, the region’s economy would have experienced a $13.41 billion loss, rather than a $9.21 billion gain.

But of course, it’s not just about economics. It’s about leadership and hard work.

I want to read to you from a Los Angeles Times editorial published one week after the Northridge quake titled “For Victims, Speed is of the Essence; Federal Disaster Agency is Overwhelmed but Undaunted.”

The editorial said, “From the start, compassionate disaster officials led by FEMA Director James Lee Witt zeroed in on the most vulnerable families.”

The editorial also gave credit to the rest of the Clinton Administration’s emergency response team for getting to California in a hurry.
The editorial said, “Along with dedicated -- and at times exhausted -- state, county and city officials, FEMA opened the first disaster assistance centers three days after the quake...Good start.”

If we didn’t learn the importance of solid leadership and coordinated response from Northridge, then we surely have learned it from the federal government’s disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina.

The evidence was clear from the television images of New Orleans residents suffering in the Superdome and standing on rooftops waiting to be rescued.

A report by House Republicans said, “America is still not ready for prime time.”

In addition, the GAO reviewed 13 major post-Katrina contracts for disaster relief. Many of these contracts were awarded with limited or no competition. GAO found that there was waste and mismanagement due to poor communication and planning.

Examples include:
• $3 million for 4,000 beds that were never used

• $10 million to renovate 160 rooms and furnish 80 rooms in Alabama for temporary housing – only six people agreed to live at the facility

And in one of the most embarrassing examples, over $300 million was wasted on nearly 11,000 mobile homes that were never used for temporary housing because they sunk into the mud.

The Katrina response was unacceptable, and is particularly troubling to me given California’s earthquake threat.

In 2001, according to the Houston Chronicle, FEMA ranked the three most likely catastrophic disasters facing this country: a terrorist attack on New York City, a direct hit to New Orleans from a powerful hurricane, and a massive earthquake in California.

I hope and pray that California is not next, but we need the leadership at the federal level to be ready.

That is why I have requested from both the White House and the Department of Homeland Security a copy of the federal government’s response to a major earthquake in California. I wanted to share that plan with first responders in the state.

However, I have learned that a federal response plan for a major earthquake in California does not exist.

Every day we wait the situation becomes more crucial, especially with the levee situation in the San Joaquin Valley.

If there was an earthquake there and the antiquated levee system failed, 2/3 of California’s drinking water would be at risk and both agriculture land and numerous homes would be flooded.

The bottom line is that if there was a 1906 earthquake today – Californians could not count on the federal government.

Today, we have a chance to hear from local responders and find out what they need. And one of the issues I really want to hear about is the communications capabilities of our first responders.

We all know how critical interoperable communications are in an emergency– the 9/11 Commission Report highlighted the desperate need for first responders to be able to speak to one another.

And yet the federal government has repeatedly failed to address this critical need. In the last 7 months alone, the Senate has twice voted down amendments to increase funding for interoperable communications.

I am going to continue working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure this need is met.
So I am anxious to hear from all of the witnesses today and I trust we will all work together to meet these needs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.